Tickner extensively contributed to International Relations in the Latin American context, exploring its connections with the notion of autonomy, and generating insights into the discourse on security, securitization, and militarism. Our focus is based on selected chapters from her book "International Studies in Latin America: intellectual subordination or emancipatory thinking?". Our analysis concentrates on three key chapters illustrating her take on how IR can be viewed from South America.

• Chapter 1, titled “The Subject of International Relations: Universal, American, or American Tool?” delves into the "Third Debate" in International Relations, the concept of “critical theory”, the inclusion of a feminist approach and the constructivist approach; 
• Chapter 3, titled “First Cut: The Thinking Behind International Relations in Latin America”, introduces the application of modernization theory to international relations in South America. 
• Chapter 7, titled “A Sociology of International Studies in Latin America”, investigates the history and characteristics of social science in the region. Tickner’s constructivist approach is scrutinised for its utility in explaining and studying international relations in South America.

Chapter 1: “The Subject of International Relations: Universal, American, or American Tool?”
This chapter traces the historical roots of claims asserting that knowledge in IR is socially constructed (Tickner 2002, 3). 
Firstly, the so-called Third Debate in IR, rooted in developments in the sociology of knowledge and philosophy of science, put forward a critique vis-à-vis empirical-positivist approaches. It contends that the study of international politics reflects epistemic hierarchies as well as extractive/exploitative practices. In spite of being a heterogeneous front, post-structuralist, postmodernist, and feminist authors all acknowledge that IR is not neutral, objective and value-free. Feminist perspectives, in particular, emphasise understanding global politics from the viewpoint of the “voiceless” actors (Tickner 2002, 16). Critical IR thus recognizes that knowledge production in IR was shaped by Cold War dynamics and post-Cold War US domination; its primary goal is emancipation and the creation of a more just social and political structure. In that respect, Tickner relies on the article by Rober Cox, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, 1987 (cited in Tickner 2002, 17). Accordingly, critical IR proceeds from the analysis of historical structures (material, ideational, institutional) that enable domination (Tickner 2002, 17). 
Secondly, post-structuralism, and its emphasis on deconstruction, explores the knowledge-power nexus by unveiling dominant "truths" in the discipline and exposing historical mechanisms of domination. Focusing on intertextuality, it reveals how power operates through language in the international political discourse. The knowledge-power nexus is made visible by the asymmetric flow of knowledge between US-based IR scholarship and “counter-hegemonic” IR: whereas the former are considered the foundations of IR traditions, the latter are often marginalised. A “genealogical” approach is thus required to unveil marginalised voices and uncover how domination gets subtly normalised (Tickner 2002, 18). 
Thirdly, feminist approaches suggest that IR replicates gender-based privilege and a hegemonic, masculine worldview through central concepts like war, national security, power, diplomacy, and rationality; moreover, they challenge the public-private divide, asserting that “the personal is political”. The centrality of war and national security in international politics reinforces the bias that the military is mostly a men’s affair. Feminist scholars therefore argue for a more inclusive definition of security, addressing gender-based inequalities and fostering a “people-centred” perspective that transcends the public-private divide and state boundaries. This approach raises questions about how security is defined, who defines it, and the specific purposes served by such definitions. Similar arguments apply to identity, where the conventional state-centric theory overlooks the experiences of other collectives in understanding international processes (Tickner 2002, 20-21). 
Fourthly, the chapter highlights ethnocentrism in IR. Parochialism in IR means that the historical experiences of a few actors are subsumed to be universal. In particular, the dominance of US-based scholarship raises concerns about the significance and applicability of the discipline and its debates for scholars in other countries characterized by different policy agendas. More broadly, presenting Western IR theories as “universal knowledge” results in the adoption of categories and methodologies with limited relevance to other countries. The process of “intellectual socialisation”, discussed by Cox, reinforces hegemony, as Global North-defined issues perpetuate a specific social and international order. Institutionalisation further associates “valid” knowledge with Western ideas, marginalising indigenous concepts (Tickner 2002, 22-23).

Chapter 3: “First cut: the thinking behind international relations in Latin America” 
Chapter 3 examines the contribution of indigenous thought in IR at large and in the specific framework of Latin American international studies. It also focuses on the challenges put forward by the dependency theory vis-à-vis Western interpretations of Third World problems (Tickner 2002, xviii-xix). 
After WWII and throughout the Cold War, the influence of the United States in Latin America has increased considerably. One of the main expressions of the intellectual influence exercised by the US was the theory of modernization. From this perspective, the problems of Latin America have been attributed to the absence of certain stages of the development process that, instead, materialised in Western Europe and the United States. The modernisation theory premises on a “nativist”, “primordialist” assumption: values and institutions that characterise the “traditional” society are the main causes of underdevelopment, as well as the main obstacle to the modernization of Latin America (Lipset; Valenzuela y Valenzuela). For the transition to modernization to occur, Third World countries need to follow the path embraced by the developed countries, through the acquisition of Western values especially by the modern political elite (Tickner 2002, 48). 
IR scholarship in Latin America did attempt to address dependency not only at the theoretical but also at the practical level: fr example through the creation of the Joint Programme of Studies on International Relations in Latin America (RIAL) (Tickner 2008, 740). In this context, the concept of autonomy has been unpacked and debated (Arlene B. Tickner, Hearing Latin American Voices in IR. International Studies Perspective, cited in Tickner 2008, 741). 

Chapter 7: “A Sociology of International Studies in Latin America” 
Constructivism is a theoretical approach in international relations that emphasises the significance of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping world politics. Unlike traditional realist theories that prioritise material factors like military power or economic capabilities, constructivism posits that social constructs, beliefs, and shared meanings greatly influence state behaviour, interactions among states, and the formation of international institutions (Tickner, 2002, 160). At its core, constructivism suggests that the functioning of the international system is not determined by objective material interest-driven factors but rather shaped by inter-subjective perceptions, social norms, and shared understandings. These perceptions and norms are formed and reinforced through interactions among states, institutions, and individuals, influencing how states interpret and respond to situations within the global arena (Ibid.). In IR, constructivism focuses on how ideational, normative and symbolic factors impact state preferences, patterns of conflict and cooperation, and the development of international institutions. It stresses the role of language, culture, historical narratives, and collective beliefs in shaping state behaviour and international outcomes (Tickner, 2002, 140). Moreover, constructivism provides insights into the dynamics of change in the international system. It acknowledges that as ideas and perceptions change, so too can state behaviour and the structure of international relations, as new norms and identities emerge or evolve (Tickner, 2002, 161). 
 

https://research-hub.urosario.edu.co/display/arlene-beth-tickner 
https://www.isanet.org/Portals/0/Documents/ISA/Elections/2022-2023/Tickner_CV.pdf